Never having voted for a tax increase in 20+ of federal government is a HUGE accomplishment. "Getting legislation passed" may be your definition of a successful politician, but a lot of times it's what you vote AGAINST that is important. Like the Iraq War.This Ron Paul love mystifies me. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't belong to The Cult of Paul (and I know you know the kinds of people I'm talking about.) But even just the casual Paul supporter confuses me... I mean, the man almost never accomplishes anything. It'd be like someone from my side picking Russ Feingold as a hero. Good guy, and I agree with most of his beliefs, but other than "standing up on principle," how is he important?
The United States is NOT a democracy, so what is the problem? The government is supposed to have checks and balances to constrain itself AND the will of the people. There is such a thing as a tyranny of the majority.Like I said before: bucking the party establishment means getting tons of alt. media headlines and netroots dollars, and Paul has certainly tapped into that. But think about the people who contribute online - left or right - they tend to be white, well-educated, have disposable income, live in cities or college towns, and are most likely not to identify with a major party. Who's interests do you think will be served? That might be a bit better than the old $1,000/plate dinners, but let's not confuse Netroots appeal with true democracy. And I say this as someone who fits that profile and contributed online to the Dean campaign in '03.
I didn't write that. I would have applauded the 13th Amendment, clearly. Most 20th Century legislation has been neutral-to-negative, though.Yeah, but you also admitted it's in your best interest to see ALL legislation fail, so I guess you'd applaud anyone who joins any filibuster at any time.
And I disagree. Americans accomplish things every day in spite of the government.First of all, don't patronize me. It's not as if I have always assumed there are two sides to every argument and this whole new world of possibilities is just somehow beyond the grasp of my imagination. I just believe that in order to actually accomplish something, Americans need to at least have general agreement on a basic premise.
Sounds like a nightmare.Look, if I had an opportunity to re-design the country MY way, I'd make it much easier to pass Constitutional amendments, so we don't have to rely on unelected, activist judges making policy. I'd abolish the electoral college, enfranchise 16-year olds, institute Instant Runoff Voting nationally, and end Presidential term limits.
Your attitude is bizarre to me. What is wrong with expressing your individual political beliefs again?But, guess what - I don't get to hit reset on this country. It's virtually impossible to amend the Constitution, so if I want to see the kinds of changes I'd like to see, I have to support those "activist judges;" we HAVE an electoral college, we HAVE term limits, we don't have IRV, so if I want to see something accomplished, I have to play within the rules that I am given. That's the purpose of a consensus. It keeps people focused on the possible rather than encouraging 300 million people to mount vanity campaigns because they get a kick out of political theory.
You can support the values and spirit of the Founding Fathers while living in 2009. You have to remember, the Constitution is THE supreme law of the land. Given that the vast majority of what the federal government does is either not authorized or explicitly prohibited in the Constitution, can you blame people for that line of criticism?What, my jab at the tea-party folks? They can't go five minutes without referencing a Founding Father or justifying their opposition to some policy or another by saying "that's not what the Founders intended." But it strikes me as a little silly to say that the Founders represent the only version of True American Values, and everything that's happened since 1789 has just bastardized those values.
You might want to consult a dictionary for a better definition of "narcissism," because yours is severely lacking.That is within your rights, and what is a demonstration of narcissism are two different things. Yup, totally within your rights. And in my opinion, an absolute display of narcissism.
Libertarians DO want to solve America's problems. We just believe that the government often causes them or makes them worse with its "solutions." The attitude of "but somebody needs to DO something about it!" is not always positive. And there is always a question of which somebody should be the one to do something. The government isn't an Easy Button.Here's an interesting fact: according to the Gallup poll, in 1964 over 70% of Americans trusted the federal government; in 1996, fewer than 20% of Americans gave the same response. Could've been Watergate, Vietnam, any number of things, but it certainly makes governing pretty tough to do. As a Libbie, I'm sure you love that trend. But as someone who actually wants to solve America's problems and believes government is an appropriate avenue to use, it seems like until we get back to some basic level of TRUST (not always agreement, but at least trust), we'll never be able to solve anything.